Unattended bags

[Skimpot flyer]

What do they gain in destroying it though?

They gain one additional person who will NEVER make the mistake of leaving their luggage unattended again.

 

[Joe Paxton]

Does anyone else feel like the unattended bag situation lately has got a bit silly?

No.

 

[DarloRich]

Does anyone else feel like the unattended bag situation lately has got a bit silly? I been approached a number of times by station staff/BTP when I have left my bag less than 5 metres from my person while I stroll up and down a small area of platform as I wait for my train. When the BTP approached me, they actually insisted on searching my bag, despite me walking over and claiming responsibility for it as soon as they got anywhere near it.

Another example: twice I have been asked if my bag belonged to me while having it sat next to my seat on the tube, albeit not directly in front of me, but directly next to the side of the seat. Both times the passenger that asked me this started to look quite panicked at the thought that someone had luggage on a train. In my opinion: ridiculous!

All of this just seems so over the top when you consider that on most long distance services you are encouraged to leave your large luggage absolutely nowhere near you, in luggage racks at the centre or end of the coach. Why is this acceptable and encouraged - leaving my bag out of sight and unattended for hours - but leaving my bag on a platform or on the tube for a few minutes must mean it is a bomb!

I'm mostly with the OP on this one. I can see the need for this at large stations, but when you get repeated announcements of this at small country stations, along with all the other safety/revenue protection stuff, as happens on GWR, not only does it annoy me, but it spoils the peace and tranquility that is so special at such places between trains. There have to be compromises between backside covering and common sense.

The UK threat level is at severe for international terrorism & substantial for NI terrorism on the mainland and you wonder why people are getting twitchy?

I assume you missed the interviews, on every media type just this week, with the current head of MI5 who set out just what we are facing as a country in relation to international terrorism. Defense against that starts with vigilance at a small and local level.

If it keeps happening to you maybe that says something? Strangely enough this has never happened to me. Maybe reconsider your behaviour.

Is the correct answer!

 

[sheff1]

Seriously though, that is one of my pet hates people walking away from their luggage even if it’s not far away, take it with you or just pop it down and stand next to it!

Whether you hate it or not, I am not going to stand still on the platform for 15 mins, neither am I going to drag a suitcase up and down. Obviously, I remain close by and keep it in sight.

Strangely, after boarding the train, I am exhorted to "put the luggage in the racks provided" even though said racks may be behind a door where they are not visible from the seats at the end of the carriage, never mind those in the middle.

 

[PeterC]

What do they gain in destroying it though?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_explosion

 

[Chris M]

Whether you hate it or not, I am not going to stand still on the platform for 15 mins, neither am I going to drag a suitcase up and down. Obviously, I remain close by and keep it in sight..

Your choices are:
1. Stand on the platform with your luggage.
2. Carry/drag your luggage with you.
3. Have your luggage investigated by staff and potentially damaged or destroyed by the security services.
There are no other options.

 

[johnkingeu]

I don't know off my head about actual bombs found in abandoned luggage on a station (plenty of things that were not identifiable either way without the attention of experts), however one was left on a Jubilee line train almost exactly a year ago. http://news.met.police.uk/news/stud...or-leaving-homemade-bomb-on-tube-train-243652

Ah, good spot I’d forgotten about that one. Technically no harm was prevented though because the initiator on the bomb failed. Are there any examples of stations being evacuated before fully working bombs exploded following a random spot?

 

[johnkingeu]

If there had been others than the above then you almost certainly wouldn’t have heard about it for reasons that should be obvious, unless as evidence given in an open trial.

There wouldn’t be many reasons for it not to be public, especially given the amount of fuss closing a station to destroy a viable device would cause. Indeed if it wasn’t publicised that there was a bomber on the loose, and another bomb went off, the security services would get it in the neck for not warning people. There may of course be a temporary hold on publicity for operational reasons, but it’s very likely that in almost all cases we would eventually find out.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

They gain one additional person who will NEVER make the mistake of leaving their luggage unattended again.

That reminds me of the announcements Northern trialled a few years ago, I forget the exact wording but it was something along the lines of

"if you leave your bag unattended, the security services may destroy it... Even if it's a really nice bag!"

Not sure why I only heard it a couple of times, perhaps it was thought to trivialise the issue. Didn't help that it was used at places like Mirfield, where security services are rather thin on the ground!

 

[Bantamzen]

Funnily enough, I have just been again accused of the heinous crime of 'leaving luggage' while waiting for the delayed 1812 VT service from Nuneaton to Holyhead.

I left my bags by the wall (as they are very heavy, and weigh over 30kg), and proceeded to pace up and down no more than 5 metres from my luggage, trying to keep warm as I waited for my delayed service. The luggage was in my line of sight at all times, and I was the only passenger waiting on the platform. A dispatcher arrived shortly before my service, and stood with my luggage in sight for a minute or two, before finally standing next to it and staring at it angrily. She then proceeded to talk on her radio for some time. I had headphones on so I was unable to hear what she was saying. At no point did she look at me or suggest that my luggage was an issue, so I simply left her to enjoy the orange aesthetic of my backpack. I thought perhaps she was admiring my choice in "Musto" brand containers.

At this point the service began to roll into the platform, and simultaneously the dispatcher began to start attempting to open one of my backpacks. At this stage I walked over and began to collect my bags in order to board the train. The dispatcher turned to me and began talking to me - at which point I took off my headphones in order to be able to hear her. Apparently there had been several announcements about my luggage (why? I was the only person on the platform, and I was stood right next to her - she could've made eye contact with me and asked me - I was unable to hear any announcements due to the excellent quality of Sony noise cancellation technology). She then began to raise her voice and repeated three times "Why did you leave your luggage?", each time giving me no time to reply. Once she had finished with this verbal assault, I proposed that I did not leave my luggage, and was in fact close to it the entire time - and suggested she could have asked me if it was mine. The lady replied "Have you not heard of terrorists or bombs or nothing like that?" and immediately followed again, in a raised voice, with "Why did you leave your luggage?".

At this point I picked up my bags and boarded my train, asking her to excuse me. She issued a dramatic sigh, threw her arms up in the air and walked off.

Excellent customer service and communication skills by Virgin Trains.

So if I've got this right, having previously been told about leaving bags you do so again & when a member of staff starts to look at your luggage you made no initial attempt to state that they were yours, but kept on listening to music? Quite frankly that's your own fault, whatever you may feel about the policy it exists for a reason. Station staff have better things to do than have to worry about passengers walking off and leaving luggage, and even though in this case you were only a few metres away the moment the member of staff approached them you should have stated they were yours. Security isn't just the responsibility of the staff and crew, you are as much responsible for it as anyone else. And keeping to simple principles such as staying close to your luggage on a platform, no matter how cold, can help prevent silly incidents like this.

I would say in this case that the member of staff did the correct thing, and you did nothing to help except get arsey with them. Just keep this thought in mind, next time you leave your luggage for others to "admire", it might not be a member of station staff inspecting them but a member of the Armed Response Unit pointing an automatic weapon at you!! Would you be as arrogant with them in such a scenario? You might think it a ridiculous situation, but just imagine if the security services have some intelligence that potential terrorists might be travelling through where you are, with intent to target a train service, and your luggage is reported as being unattended?

It really isn't asking much to keep close to your belongings on a platform, and when on a train and travelling by yourself just asking a fellow passenger to keep an eye on your luggage if you need to nip to the loos or buffet car. Yes it involves that oh-so-no-British activity of engaging with others, but it can go a long way to making your journey less stressful.

 

[whhistle]

It might be silly but this is the world we now live in.
No amount of moaning or commenting on it will change that fact. It's a shame but that's modern life now.

Let's face it, if there was a bomb, I'm sure the company responsible for security would be dragged over the coals in the media for not taking appropriate action.

 

[Antman]

May I have your attention please.......Do not leave unattended items and luggage at this station. Unattended luggage will be removed by security services and may be destroyed. Please keep your belongings with you at all times and report anything suspicious.

Particularly annoying at times of disruption when all people want to know is when their train is likely to show up!

 

[mpthomson]

There wouldn’t be many reasons for it not to be public, especially given the amount of fuss closing a station to destroy a viable device would cause. Indeed if it wasn’t publicised that there was a bomber on the loose, and another bomb went off, the security services would get it in the neck for not warning people. There may of course be a temporary hold on publicity for operational reasons, but it’s very likely that in almost all cases we would eventually find out.

No, there are reasons why it may not be made public, especially if it was found after an intelligence led operation rather than a member of public or staff spotting something. The first you'd know about it is at point of trial.

 

[Antman]

The UK threat level is at severe for international terrorism & substantial for NI terrorism on the mainland and you wonder why people are getting twitchy?

I assume you missed the interviews, on every media type just this week, with the current head of MI5 who set out just what we are facing as a country in relation to international terrorism. Defense against that starts with vigilance at a small and local level.



Is the correct answer!

There is no correct answer, merely opinions on the rights and wrongs of it all.

 

[Richard1960]

Its important to keep checking for unattended bags or maybe check to see if the person walking away is coming back, I remember the bag on the tube train person walked away did not return ,nobody noticed , and yes it went off I always bear that in mind.

 

[mpthomson]

Ah, good spot I’d forgotten about that one. Technically no harm was prevented though because the initiator on the bomb failed. Are there any examples of stations being evacuated before fully working bombs exploded following a random spot?

That's a really desperate leap to support your (erroneous) view. The person who left it there certainly felt it was a viable device, there isn't a 'technically' about it. The fact that it was a bit crap was more down to luck on the part of everyone around it, just as the recent tube incident was. Gerry Adams got it right, when he said that the state had be lucky every time, the IRA only have to get lucky once (slight paraphrase).

 

[CaptainHaddock]

The UK threat level is at severe for international terrorism & substantial for NI terrorism on the mainland and you wonder why people are getting twitchy?

I assume you missed the interviews, on every media type just this week, with the current head of MI5 who set out just what we are facing as a country in relation to international terrorism. Defense against that starts with vigilance at a small and local level.

This unfortunately is the kind of hysterical over-reaction that leads to situations like the one the OP experienced. In reality the UK is far safer now than it was in the 1980s when we were at genuine risk from not just the IRA but possible nuclear attack. It doesn't take a genius to work out that MI5 have been exggerating the terorist threat for years as the greater the perceived threat, the more funding they'll get. This article explains it far better than I can.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-britain-safer-than-ever-andrew-parker-terror

I've mentioned on here many times in the past the pointlessness of the constant "security services" announcements that are so irritating that a pair of headphones are pretty much eesential to drown them out. They just create a "boy who cried wolf" effect which means that in the unlikely event that there was a genuine bomb threat, few people would take it seriously.

 

[Bantamzen]

This unfortunately is the kind of hysterical over-reaction that leads to situations like the one the OP experienced. In reality the UK is far safer now than it was in the 1980s when we were at genuine risk from not just the IRA but possible nuclear attack. It doesn't take a genius to work out that MI5 have been exggerating the terorist threat for years as the greater the perceived threat, the more funding they'll get. This article explains it far better than I can.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-britain-safer-than-ever-andrew-parker-terror

Hmmm, there will be people in London & Manchester who would disagree with these sentiments, particularly those who have been directly affected by terrorist attacks in recent months/years.

I've mentioned on here many times in the past the pointlessness of the constant "security services" announcements that are so irritating that a pair of headphones are pretty much eesential to drown them out. They just create a "boy who cried wolf" effect which means that in the unlikely event that there was a genuine bomb threat, few people would take it seriously.

I'm not a great fan of the announcement overkill that goes on at UK rail stations, but from my observation of people with big luggage & bikes struggling onto escalators / stairs (often lifting said items over barriers designed to prevent them passing though), I have come to the conclusion that the great British public has the attention span of a goldfish, and so really does need constant reminding of what should be basic safety issues.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What do they gain in destroying it though?

They don't do it to make a point or be vindictive. But if they strongly suspect it to be a bomb, it may well be blown up in a controlled explosion by bomb disposal without checking if it actually is or not, in order to avoid putting staff at risk.

 

[EM2]

They just create a "boy who cried wolf" effect which means that in the unlikely event that there was a genuine bomb threat, few people would take it seriously.

They wouldn't get the choice, because they would be evacuated from the station whether they like it or not.

 

[mpthomson]

This unfortunately is the kind of hysterical over-reaction that leads to situations like the one the OP experienced. In reality the UK is far safer now than it was in the 1980s when we were at genuine risk from not just the IRA but possible nuclear attack. It doesn't take a genius to work out that MI5 have been exggerating the terorist threat for years as the greater the perceived threat, the more funding they'll get. This article explains it far better than I can.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-britain-safer-than-ever-andrew-parker-terror

I've mentioned on here many times in the past the pointlessness of the constant "security services" announcements that are so irritating that a pair of headphones are pretty much eesential to drown them out. They just create a "boy who cried wolf" effect which means that in the unlikely event that there was a genuine bomb threat, few people would take it seriously.

Wrong, unfortunately and much of the int that we see has nothing to do with MI5 either in sourcing or dissemination. As I say, I see the Int Briefs routinely. These aren't the ones designed for politicians, theses are the ones designed for people who work with the threat routinely. Andrew Parker has the slightest modicum of a point, but it doesn't mean that we shouldn't do everything possible to stop these attacks and if one of them is don't leave your luggage unattended then it's hardly an affront to the British way of life is it? He's halfway to suggesting that we just tolerate these attacks, which really would change the way we lived our lives.

Your analysis of the current threat is way out, the only reason deaths are lower is that the security services are doing a much better job than they did in the past in discovering and discouraging plots through the means available to them. As just one example we still are under 'genuine' risk from the IRA (or their successor organisations). They're still very active in NI and have designs on attacks in the UK too. I'm not aware of any incident where a bomb threat hasn't been taken seriously in recent times, unless you are? There have been two very real bomb threats on the tube within the last 12mths, it's not an unlikely scenario.

 

[Mathew S]

Has a bomb ever been found on a station anywhere in the world which has been discovered by searching unattended luggage? In the absence of a warning, threat or specific information, that is?

We don't tend to hear about the devices that are found in time (with good reason, protecting sources & methods), but let's not forget that it only takes one device not being found to cause a catastrophy.

 

[AlterEgo]

There wouldn’t be many reasons for it not to be public, especially given the amount of fuss closing a station to destroy a viable device would cause. Indeed if it wasn’t publicised that there was a bomber on the loose, and another bomb went off, the security services would get it in the neck for not warning people. There may of course be a temporary hold on publicity for operational reasons, but it’s very likely that in almost all cases we would eventually find out.

John, I rather suspect you're not the subject matter expert out of the two of you.

 

[Mathew S]

There wouldn’t be many reasons for it not to be public, especially given the amount of fuss closing a station to destroy a viable device would cause. Indeed if it wasn’t publicised that there was a bomber on the loose, and another bomb went off, the security services would get it in the neck for not warning people. There may of course be a temporary hold on publicity for operational reasons, but it’s very likely that in almost all cases we would eventually find out.

There are plenty of reasons for not making it public, including protecting intelligence sources and not disclosing methods used by the security services, to name but two. Contrary to some popular beliefs, the police and security services are quite capable of keeping these things from the public when they think it's necessary, and (and I speak as a journalist) the press won't report it if they're asked not to for a good reason.

 

[mpthomson]

There are plenty of reasons for not making it public, including protecting intelligence sources and not disclosing methods used by the security services, to name but two. Contrary to some popular beliefs, the police and security services are quite capable of keeping these things from the public when they think it's necessary, and (and I speak as a journalist) the press won't report it if they're asked not to for a good reason.

Indeed, I suspect (I don't know, as I don't need to) that the number of D notices issued around this area has gone up over the last ten years or so.

 

[3141]

May I have your attention please.......Do not leave unattended items and luggage at this station. Unattended luggage will be removed by security services and may be destroyed. Please keep your belongings with you at all times and report anything suspicious.

But there's the problem - or perhaps two problems. First, according to the OP, he was walking up and down near to his luggage. In the incident at Nuneaton that he describes, the luggage was heavy and he was the only person on the platform. I don't think it's reasonable to expect passengers to stand right next to their luggage all the time - though I do think it's reasonable that they should remain in touch with the world and not isolated by their noise-cancelling earphones. The second problem is those people who keep their belongings with them on the train, occupying a seat instead of on an overhead rack or in a stack.

The thread indicates the contradictions that arise as we move from a fundamentally civilised society to one in which a small number of people think they can commit mass murder. Staff will feel the need to check everything - because if they don't, there will come a time when what they judged to be an innocent piece of luggage turns out to be lethal. Passengers may have to accept that if they don't stay beside their luggage it will come under suspicion, with a range of possible consequences. We won't like it, but after a few more successful terrorist atrocities we may generally conclude that it's preferable to being blown up.

 

[Mathew S]

Indeed, I suspect (I don't know, as I don't need to) that the number of D notices issued around this area has gone up over the last ten years or so.

It's actually pretty rare for specific DA-Notices to be issued, and at the end of the day they are only advisory anyway. If, as journalists, we don't agree with the reasons given, or think there's an overriding public interest, we are perfectly free to report regardless.
There is a system of standing arrangements (http://dsma.uk/danotices/index.htm) covering areas like intelligence, ongoing military operations, and so on. These guide general journalistic practice.
In general, though, it's much more informal. As a journalist reporting on this kind of story I'm always going to speak to BTP or the regional police CTU so that I ensure I'm not putting anyone at risk. If they ask me to hold off for a period of time, or simply not report something, then as long as they've a good reason, that's what I'm going to do.

 

[mpthomson]

But there's the problem - or perhaps two problems. First, according to the OP, he was walking up and down near to his luggage. In the incident at Nuneaton that he describes, the luggage was heavy and he was the only person on the platform. I don't think it's reasonable to expect passengers to stand right next to their luggage all the time - though I do think it's reasonable that they should remain in touch with the world and not isolated by their noise-cancelling earphones. The second problem is those people who keep their belongings with them on the train, occupying a seat instead of on an overhead rack or in a stack.

The thread indicates the contradictions that arise as we move from a fundamentally civilised society to one in which a small number of people think they can commit mass murder. Staff will feel the need to check everything - because if they don't, there will come a time when what they judged to be an innocent piece of luggage turns out to be lethal. Passengers may have to accept that if they don't stay beside their luggage it will come under suspicion, with a range of possible consequences. We won't like it, but after a few more successful terrorist atrocities we may generally conclude that it's preferable to being blown up.

In more peaceful times I'd agree with your first paragraph, however that's not the situation we find ourselves in and the return of ISIS fighters from Iraq and Syria is likely to mean that the risk increases as they are likely to have had exposure to the construction of more sophisticated IEDs (hence why Rory Stewart was stating that the ideal would be that they were all killed as enemy combatants over there). It isn't passengers may have to accept, it's passengers have to accept now. That's just the way it is, unfortunately. Staying near your baggage isn't exactly a significant insult to the British way of life.

 

[mpthomson]

It's actually pretty rare for specific DA-Notices to be issued, and at the end of the day they are only advisory anyway. If, as journalists, we don't agree with the reasons given, or think there's an overriding public interest, we are perfectly free to report regardless.
There is a system of standing arrangements (http://dsma.uk/danotices/index.htm) covering areas like intelligence, ongoing military operations, and so on. These guide general journalistic practice.
In general, though, it's much more informal. As a journalist reporting on this kind of story I'm always going to speak to BTP or the regional police CTU so that I ensure I'm not putting anyone at risk. If they ask me to hold off for a period of time, or simply not report something, then as long as they've a good reason, that's what I'm going to do.

Thanks for that, I've not been involved in that side of it so interesting to know.

 

[Mathew S]

Thanks for that, I've not been involved in that side of it so interesting to know.

No worries. Doesn't get talked about as much as it should.